Bob

As long as there are two people on earth, you can't have absolute freedom. I don't see the problem here (at least in the west). Governments (allegedly representing the people) make rules and laws for various reasons and there are always vigorous debates about how intrusive the rule should be. Those people who advocate no rules are just dreamers, divorced from reality and common sense (just my opinion). So, the issue is not whether we have rules but how far (intrusive, if you will) will a given law go? Well, that's for the legislature to decide and, if you don't like a proposed rule, go gripe about it and maybe you can influence the outcome. Or, if you don't like a rule already adopted, go talk to your representative about introducing a bill to amend or repeal it. Or, if you think a rule actually violates your underlying constitution, challenge it in court. Or, if you don't like the rules some particular politician is advocating, then don't vote for the guy/gal and go support his/her opposition. That's called democracy. This whole debate reminds me of the gun-nuts (and I'd note I own many guns) such as the NRA who scream bloody murder every time a gun rule is proposed. If (unlikely in most cases) you can get the NRA dude or duddette to calm down and discuss the situation rationally, the issue is never that there should be no rules at all but what are the reasonable rules that ought to be in place. For example only, most (note: not all!) NRA people will accept that not everybody should have a machine gun, bazooka, or thermonuclear weapon. So, the big fight often comes down to some nuance such as whether the government ought to be allowed to ban a particular kind of weapon (such as the cheap "saturday-night" specials or the gun that holds a magazine of 50 rounds)or particular kinds of practices (like having a concealed weapon or shooting game out a car window). I'd note that I have had total disgust with the NRA since it fought the banning of the teflon-coated bullets a decade ago (these teflon-coated bullets, also called cop-killer bullets, were designed solely to penetrate body armor and have zero utility in either hunting situations or target practice); yet, the NRA screamed bloody murder that banning such bullets was a gross infringement of their second amendment rights. Balderdash.

Be aware that most of the Thai horror movies involve a lot of slashing, blood, etc. Much more gore than what anybody in the West is used to seeing. Playing quite often at any Thai movie theater. Or, pick up a dvd at one of the 8 billion kiosks selling that type of stuff in Thailand.

Actually, I thought that comment was rather funny (much more so than Rowan).

Hmmm.....well, I guess I'm a tad younger (but not far behind). I'll start collecting SS next year at age 62. It's funny that when you're real young, a short time period seems important. You ask a kid if he's 8 and he responds: "No I'm not, I'm 8 and a half!" At our ages, 4-5 years (let alone 6 months) doesn't mean diddley.

Huh? (adding to that the sound of something whooshing by my head). It's been so long I forgot who/what I was supposed to kiss. Was it Nookie? And is "Nookie" a person or an activity?

I enjoy both Songkran and Loy Krathong. It's difficult for me to understand how people (a fair number of them) simply detest Songkran. As long as you're properly prepared (sandals, wallet in a waterproof baggie, etc.), what's not to like about watching thousands of Thais having a ball? I acknowledge that 3+ days of it can get a bit tiresome - but just stay inside once you've reached your limit. And, with minimal effort, you can walk around without getting too blasted (I always have camera in hand although I do take a plastic bag with me if/when it's needed).

Egads, lvdkeyes, you're in trouble then! I don't even agree with me some of the time! (Actually, I'm guessing we're about the same age.....but you gotta be a whole lot better lookin'....)

Besides being much older than you, I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy - I still dislike both of them about equally. Nixon was never as dumb as GWB but he was a whole lot meaner (you almost have to be smart to be devious and mean).

What's sadder to me than the fact that these two idiots are taking potshots at each other is the fact that millions of people can't wait to read and hear about it. To advance some civility and intelligence in the world, these two ought to be left to total obscurity.

Knowing the show is highly popular, I've tried to watch it before; however, and maybe I'm weird, I don't find the show to be either clever or funny. Then again, I'd guess my sense of humor is rather weird as I've never liked most of the most popular tv shows (such as Seinfeld, LaVerne & Shirley, etc.). I pine for the return of somebody like Johnny Carson - who I thought was both witty and funny. Okay, I'm a fuddy duddy.

Bail is used to insure that one appears for the legal proceedings and bail is not given when it's obvious the guy will flee the jurisdiction. He's already proven what he'll do and, if he's given bail in Switzerland, he's gone and he'll never leave France again. Once he's in the US, he most certainly won't be given bail until his proceedings are concluded (judges don't give bail to bail jumpers, period).

In my view, there's nothing wrong with the government trying to make helpful information available so people have a better chance of making an informed choice (presuming their inclined to do so). I'd have no problem with them posting the red flags and, while some will ignore any helpful information, I'd bet a few less people drowned because the flags were up. Although perfection is out of the question, the government warnings and regulations do a lot of good. The SEC does protect against some scams, the required labeling on foods do help out a lot of people with allergies, etc. The fact that some ignore the warnings is no reason to stop giving them, at least in my view. You drink safe water in some countries because of governmental regulations and, in some places, you breathe healthier air because of government rules. One could give hundreds of examples. The seatbelt laws (and other laws about car construction) have saved millions of lives. And, like lvdkeyes notes, I'm totally in favor of the motorsy helmet laws (I am less concerned by some hip dude splashing himself over the pavement than having the taxpayers pay for him to vegetate for the rest of his life).

Hell, I get drunk/tipsy more often than that, you wuss! And as for stupid? It's a daily thing for me...

I can understand the notion of getting different points of view; however, when I say that, what I mean is getting differing intelligent points of view. For example, watching both the BBC and Aljazera (spelling?). I suppose the notion of watching Fox news to get a different point of view is somewhat similar to reading both the New York Times and the National Enquirer?

Subverted? Dang, sounds like a conspiracy. In the message board world, it's called derailing (as in "the thread was derailed"). Normal routine on the message boards and quite often (just my opinion) the derailing often involves some humorous comments more interesting the the initial thread theme. Sorta like the post office game we older farts used to play back in the 50's.

Rather gross to me....any 17-year-old with anybody about 100 years old. And the old geezer states he's been wanting to marry her for a long time but he thought he ought to wait until she grows up? How thoughtful of the old prune. (Hell, he was 83 when she was born!)

While on the topic, here are a few of the more literate (but still rather ignorant) quotes from ol' GW: "I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush "The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country." [The guy has a mind like a steel trap, eh?] - George W. Bush "I have made good judgements in the past. I have made good judgements in the future." - George W. Bush "I have my own, strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them." - George W. Bush "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." - George W. Bush "We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe, We are a part of Europe." - George W. Bush

Yea, sure. Probably staring at some porn site involving United Airlines stewardesses?

Well, like Thailand, nothing's really free...hehe.

I actually googled the hell out of that very issue a couple of years back. From everything I read, this is what I found out: (1) The so-called war on drugs began in February of the applicable year (2005?) and ended by the end of May of that same year. (2) Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai party - along with others - became alarmed at the rapidly increasing use of yabba and the damage caused by it. In other words, it seemed a legitimate concern. I recall the rapidly escalating newspaper articles on the subject during the prior year. (3) In typical Thaksin/Thai style, they announced the program to rid Thailand of all drugs. Yea, just about as dumb a pronouncement as the one where they were going to get rid of all poverty within 4 months. (4) The task of going after the smugglers and dealers was given to both the military and the police. Supposedly there were about 1400-1600 drug smugglers/dealers killed during the 4-month time period. I frankly could find nothing to actually support that figure and, as usual, I don't trust much of what the Thai press reports or the Thai government announces. (5) How many were actual extra-judicial murders? Heck if I know but my gut guess would be quite a few. (6) Did Shinawatra or the government actually condone or suggest that the smugglers/dealers be dealt with illegally (i.e., just shoot them?)? Nothing I could find anywhere. But the campaign ended in May of that year after Shinawatra and some other politicians actually acknowledged that some events occurred (some innocent people getting killed - one big one was some young boy being killed while he was sleeping in the back of his daddy's get-away car) which were improper. There appears to be no evidence of direct complicity by Shinawatra or a top government official - but I also remember none of them coming out to clearly enunciate any condemnation of the tactics. Of course, other than maybe one cop or military guy, none of the cops or military were charged with anything.

Agreed. Every country seems to have its mutants and hopefully there's selective genetic mutations taking place for the better (i.e., I hope Darwin didn't have it backwards!).

If I had a wife and kids (I don't), I gotta be honest that Pattaya sure as hell wouldn't even be in my thought processes of where to take a family vacation.

Rather gross, Wino, but there are some strange people out there, that's for sure. A colleague of mine was once representing some strange guy (he was about 40, about 400 pounds, and was developmentally disabled with the mind of about an 8-year-old) and, in the process of interviewing him, had to ask about a prior conviction involving cows (he apparently worked on a farm at the time and put ribbons around the ears of his "favorite" cows). Anyway, the colleague finally got around to saying: "Well, I need to ask you about a prior conviction, apparently involving some cows?" The strange dude thought about it for a few seconds and then loudly proclaimed: "Yea, but I don't do no goats!" You see, everybody has a value system!

Gobble, gobble....

Sorry but that's simply incorrect (at least in the US). Property can be forfeited in some cases where the person is not found guilty of the criminal offense in question. But, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, no property can be taken without a proper hearing and an opportunity to be heard. The standard of proof in some cases is "by a preponderance of the evidence" (means by more than 50%, sort of) versus the proof required (beyond a reasonable doubt) in a criminal case. If the prosecutor cannot meet the applicable burden of proof to the satisfaction of the jury (or judge if only a bench trial), you get your stuff back. Now, there are some minor exceptions to that rule. For example, an unregistered handgun or illicit drugs can be seized by the cops at any time and nobody gets a hearing for that (well, you could demand a hearing but you'd probably be found guilty of felonious stupidity for claiming to own such items....).